by Sterling Antony, CPP, expert witness in packaging, marketing, logistics, human-factors, and warnings.
Synopsis
A driver for a package-delivery service, while on a run, incurred an injury to the foot that resulted in amputation of a toe. The driver said that, upon retrieving a package from a shelf in his delivery truck, the bottom of the package failed, allowing the contents to fall through, onto his foot.
The driver sued the shipper, alleging negligence from defective packaging.
I was retained by the Defendant.
Opinions
The packaging was not defective; to the contrary, it was of a design and sturdiness adequate for the known and reasonably foreseeable conditions associated with the package-delivery industry.
The fitness of the packaging had been time-tested and shown to be fit for its intended purpose. The same type of packaging design and construction had been used by the shipper, to the same customer, for more than 20 years. In a deposition, the customer testified to never having had an incident of packaging failure.
The packaging met all of the requirements listed in the literature and on the website of the package-delivery service that employed the Plaintiff.
A package-delivery service has the authority and the duty to reject any package deemed to be defective; and, in that such wasn’t done with the packaging-at-issue, it is fair to say that there was nothing observably deficient with the packaging at the time it was tendered.
A package-delivery driver, by training and experience, should be able to recognize observably deficient packaging and then act in accordance with company policy; and, in that such wasn’t done with the packaging-at-issue, it is fair to say that no such appearances existed at the time the driver placed the packaging on the shelf of the truck.
The exemplar involved in the incident and examined by this expert for the Defense was damaged to a degree that would have been obvious to the Plaintiff; more so, the damage suggested that it was inflicted after-incident, on empty packaging.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim, the contents could not have escaped through a failed bottom, because the bottom was solid as opposed to being taped flaps.
In all, the Plaintiff’s narrative as to how he was injured was inconsistent with the evidence, as presented by the design and construction of the packaging used by the shipper and by the exemplar examined by this expert for the Defense.
Result
The case settled.
Sterling Anthony, CPP, is an expert witness, specializing in packaging, marketing, logistics, human-factors, and warnings. Contact him at: 100 Renaissance Center-176, Detroit, MI 49243; 313-531-1875; thepackagingexpertwitness@gmail.com; www.thepackagingexpertwitness.com